NoMoreFakeNews.com

Mental disorders do not exist

To say that a person should have a right to consider himself mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument from the principle of individual freedom.

To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective standard is quite another thing.

Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not exist.

Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific ones. But, this is assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.

For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any kind.

Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are medical doctors. What are they doing that is medical?

Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.

The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or alleviate “the brain chemical imbalances” that form the basis for all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is unproven. It may “make sense” to some people, but that doesn’t constitute evidence.

People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance hypothesis is true. Belief doesn’t make it true.

People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.

A person says, “I was diagnosed with clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I’ve felt much happier.”

Yes. Fine. I have no interest in challenging that statement. I merely point out that there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from then on.

There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt better.

Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals or prayer?

I’m not talking about what a person says makes him feel better. I’m talking about what psychiatrists claim is science. And when you scratch the surface of that, you come up with: no compelling evidence.

Yet, in courts and in doctors’ offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of professional journals and in political gulags, the science of discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as settled, confirmed, verified, certain. That is a baldfaced lie.

All 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.

Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again, they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they left with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those behaviors.

Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt. They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don’t know how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at an impasse. Yes.

This is far different from claiming they have a specific and detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.

“Well,” many psychiatrists say, “the hypothesis of chemical balance is confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact, based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental disorders.”

Let’s examine that approach. Take, for example, Ritalin.

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

Not a ringing endorsement.

How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:

Notice that all the criteria for a diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no definitive mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.

Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm a diagnosis.

But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense seems to dictate that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.

Let’s briefly examine that. What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder:

* a vaccine injury;
* a head injury in an accident;
* an ingestion of a neurological poison;
* an environmental chemical;
* a severe nutritional deficit;
* perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…

However, in that case, why bother to call it “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? The answer should be clear: By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.

In fact, when it comes to the US government’s vaccine injury compensation program for parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can engage in a con game. The government can say, “In order to establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying factor that applies to all cases of autism. Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”

But, of course, what is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are caused by various traumas.

The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not exist.

People find such statements very unsettling. They argue, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”

This proves that a label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, that after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with vaccine detox or, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments.

What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental disorders. They are labels. There is no reason to suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.

Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere. The whole thrust of official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with profit and fascist control.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

19 comments on “Mental disorders do not exist”

[…] Psychiatry is imperfect but it is much more helpful than […]. Medications get better, less side effects and more benefit but there is still a lot of trial and error in the process of helping psychiatric patients. Psychological treatments have also improved over the years and patients have benefited from these advances. I believe you would benefit from learning more about these advances.

Hey Bud, this well-researched guy has shown that he probably knows more of this issue than you ever could…

You live in a closed box that severely limits your perspective, while he’s open to experiencing the whole World! Letters after your name only mean that you’ve been indoctrinated into a secret mystical school that must remain closed to outsiders so that you can peddle your “specialist ” mumbo-jumbo and sound important to the ignoratti.

You social engineers and controllers are a pox on society, and the sooner you are publicly exposed as lying manipulators and corrupt drug dealers the better for the whole Planet’s “mental health”.

Yes, we could see clearly that beneficial effects. And also development in drugs for example in the case of the Germane Wings catastrophe… not just the depressed pilot but all of passengers died.
According to info available on internet many mass shootings also can be linked to the use of psychiatric drugs.
Those people (wouldn’t call them doctors) who prescribed these frogs are simply murderers in my eye. And I highly doubt they are simply stupid to see effects clearly…. rather hungry for money / power … maybe fear but some people do things because of money/ fear but some just don’t…

What are your thoughts on the fact that every single mental illness in the DSM is based more or less on the opinion of the administering doctor/s and not on any verifiable science, yet we are lead to believe otherwise? You may be a solid doctor comparatively speaking, but your still practicing make believe medicine based on no real science which should make you consider changing career paths.

“….HIV deserves separate analysis, conveniently revealing how viruses are transmitted. First off, HIV does not cause “AIDS”. Horrific medications deliver known symptoms to those diagnosed with HIV and Ebola (in particular). Back in the hay day, prior to the great Thalidomide expose, pharmaceutical cartels were consumed by waging wars against all phantom causes without restriction. Perhaps around 1955 a “vaccine” serum was produced to alleviate polio (even though statistics show the virus was on the decline and about to “burn out” – note to self: which industrial practice was becoming obsolete?). The serum was originally grown in the kidneys of green monkeys and chimpanzees. Because heavily populated cosmopolitan areas of Africa are invariably extremely polluted by unregulated industries, wildlife is bombarded with a constant flow of extraneous particles delivered via the local atmosphere.

Chimpanzees and green monkeys uniquely process this pollution to their bodies’ specifications and these viral effects were transmuted to the polio vaccine. Because human bodies are different, the same viral effects were “mutated” as HIV strains. When propagandists recommended polio jabs for “safety” from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s (courtesy of the IMF/WHO two-step, Africa was flooded with tainted stocks up until the late 1980’s), the inoculated received active monkey virus at no extra charge, which, of course, altered to become what is now termed “HIV”. Between humans, HIV could only be transmitted “blood to blood” (even though the complaint is apparently seen in body fluids) commonly hampering habitual needle sharing drug users. Symptoms are over quickly and not severe, perhaps equating to a heavy common cold.

Marketing of the HIV “threat” was a campaign of fear and manipulation against the gullible and just about everyone fell for it. To reinforce truth, causers of all the exaggerated AIDS symptoms were through fault of drugs administered as “solution”, notably failed “chemo” agent AZT. Jon Rappoport builds a stunning case in his book “AIDS Inc.”…”

In addition:

“In conjunction with this overall philosophy, pharmaceutical “colonists” process foods that were once the assets of hereditary medical knowledge. Extracts are given technical names in order to confuse doctors and people over pertinent origins. That is why nature can provide miracle cures. Not only are ingredients that have been processed as pills often widely available in raw form, but they are also far more potent remedies than reduced versions. The myth that medicine is more vital than nature is a hangover from nineteenth century confidence quackery. Once again, the best way of introducing non-invasive medication to the bloodstream is via the gut. In instances where resources for elixirs are difficult to obtain, the pharmaceutical cartel sees its first duty is to profits and not to the overall wellbeing of sick. It is unable to reason the moral duty of care.”

And, even if a particular chemical imbalance WAS proven to exist in sufferers of ‘mental disorder x’ that does not prove that the chemical imbalance was the cause of the disorder; correlation does not equal causation after all. It may simply be a symptom and suppressing symptoms is not usually the best way to solve a problem in the long-term.

One thing comes to mind is the Placebo effect.
If the part where the Placebo as a pill is being described,
as in this pill will do such and such, and cure the ailment,
is taken out of the equation, then it seems plausible,
that my Grandmother bypassed that stage.

She went right into the future stage where ailment no longer is.

If one takes the label and description or definitions
of mental disorders as being a move towards Nocebo,
– is this not plausible? Creating restrictions or confinements?
Then the pill creates conditions towards the Placebo side.

A similar occurrence, somewhat related.
Meditation Saved My Life
A Tibetan Lama and the Healing Power of the Mind
by Phakyab Rinpoche

The reason for mentioning this book,
is that it may be viewed similar to my Grandmothers incident,
but the process is slowed down.

American doctors gave Rinpoche a shocking choice:
accept leg amputation or risk a slow, painful death.
An inner voice, however,
prompted him to try an unconventional cure:
meditation.

Against all scientific logic, his injuries gradually healed.

There is a subtle glimpse of something,
that something which is difficult to put into words.

Now, a question may be put forth.
In accepting Psychiatry’s labels and definitions,
– is something be ‘ Amputated ‘?

That something being
– the secret of the great healing powers
that lie dormant within each of us?

Spot on, Jon! 100% agree and have said for a very long time putting labels on behaviors is simply for profit. Often that label becomes part of who that person is and that’s sad. Per the psychologist’s comment above, that’s nonsense. Advances, unless you are speaking of learning the truth and treating the person individually with what he or she needs, such as nutrients, sunshine, exercise, EFT, and the like, are just more ways to make money at the expense of others. Why do you think once a patient almost always a patient?

At least this excruciating outrage appears to be slowly stopping. In the Far East they started removing the term “Schizophrenia” – https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/40/2/255/1944451 – There’s also a follow up study, that I don’t have to hand just now, that shows that after the term was removed patients and doctors could more easily communicate with one another and solve problems.

Officially, technically, the DSM-5 is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So we should not say that mental disorders do not exits. They’re in the book. We might suggest that mental diseases do not exist, but the rest of world uses the ICD10, the International Classification of Diseases for mental illnesses.

However, the DSM-5 clearly has a technical issue with mental illness, disorders, diseases – or whatever word they use. The problem is “mental”, which is not defined and cause, which is not pursued.

The cause problem creates a catch-22 situation. If a mental (disorder, disease,…) is caused by nutrition, and can be cured by nutrition, then it’s not a mental disorder, it’s a nutritional disorder. If a mental disorder is caused by physical, emotional, or mental abuse, and cured by addressing the abuse, then it’s not a mental disorder, it’s a consequence of abuse. If a mental disorder is caused by a poison, and cured by removing the poison, then it wasn’t a mental disorder, it was poisoning.

If a mental disorder can be cured, then it wasn’t a mental disorder. Cures are accomplished by addressing the cause. If the cause is addressed – then the disorder was a consequence of the cause, so it wasn’t a mental disorder.

It’s a great definition if you are selling “treatments for signs and symptoms”, because nobody expects a cure for any mental disorder. The word cure only appears once in the DSM-5, in hope for “future cures” because cures in the present are not allowed.

Jon, i have friends and family that are therapist and psychiatrist. Many of these people are compassionate and caring and also still hurt from whatever traumatic experiences. I try to point out these realities of the lack of actual diagnosis. After objections its a pretty simple argument. Who have you actually healed? Not just medicated or helped them cope. Who actually gets off the drugs and becomes healthier after getting the medical cocktails. Why is there so much failure from the mental health treatment? Simply because they don’t offer a solution. Those stuck in the academia and career of mental health miss the point of their work which is to actually help people. Pray and crystals is better than zoloft. No adverse drug reactions or dependency issues and probably have better results.